TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manabhan, Technical Member Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR) for the appellant Shri Karthikeyan, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal has been filed by the Department against the impugned order dt. 26/04/2006 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the appeal by the respondent and set aside the Order-in-Original. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent is a manufacturer of electrical stampings falling under Chapter 83 85 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In addition to the manufacturing and clearance of their products, the respondent/assessee also engaged in the manufacture of excisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal in support of their submissions. The Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned AR for the Department submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) is contrary to the law and is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside on the ground that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not appreciated that the value of the scrap arisen during the manufacture of finished goods retained and sold by the job worker on payment of appropriate duty is includable in the assessable value of the finishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise at all. 6.4 The Kolkata Bench in the case of Orissa Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bhuvaneswar (supra) have also relied on the International Auto case and held that the job worker (intermediate manufacturer) need not pay differential duty by taking value inclusive of cost of raw materials, as raw materials supplier would be entitled to credit or Intermediate goods could be returned without payment of duty under Rule 57F procedure. If the intermediary product is not liable for duty, the question of adding the value of scrap does not arise at all. In these circumstances, in our view, the value of scrap need not be included in the assessable value of the products manufactured by the appellant. 6. He further submitted that against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
